אחרי שלושה ימים סוערים: מנדלבליט חוזר לעדות רביעית

The former Attorney General, Avichai Mandelblit, is set to continue his testimony on Wednesday for the fourth time in the Netanyahu trial. His testimony follows three turbulent days marked by sharp confrontations and revelations, during which significant discrepancies emerged between Mandelblit's memory and official documents. Questions were raised about the validity of approvals for Netanyahu's investigations and about investigative actions taken by the police without his prior knowledge.

During his previous testimony, Mandelblit had to admit that Prime Minister Netanyahu was not explicitly warned of bribery suspicions in Case 4000. He also struggled to recall if he had specifically approved an investigation into this offense. The defense attorney, Amit Haddad, focused on Mandelblit's oversight of the investigations, highlighting instances where investigative actions were carried out without his explicit approval, though Mandelblit distinguished between routine and dramatic actions. He also testified that he did not identify criminal suspicion against Netanyahu in Case 3000 and was unaware of police efforts to direct the investigation towards the Prime Minister in that case.

Further revelations included Mandelblit's order to cancel an eavesdropping attempt on Natan Achel due to concerns of improper political interference. He also admitted to not being fully aware of the details of an investigative exercise conducted for an associate of state witness Nir Hefetz. The defense also questioned Mandelblit's signature on the amended indictment, presenting evidence suggesting his signature might have been copied from the original indictment.

Mandelblit confirmed he did not personally review all 315 coverage events added to Case 4000, relying instead on the prosecution's summary, which the defense argues indicates a lack of sufficient independent review. He also acknowledged that while explicit approval for expanding Bezeq's investigations would have been appropriate, such a procedural flaw does not automatically invalidate the evidence. He admitted that oral approvals could have been better documented but rejected claims of undue pressure on his decision-making.

The defense argued that Mandelblit was misled by investigators and that crucial information was withheld from him. Mandelblit denied intentional concealment by the prosecution, stating the prosecution served as a professional arm, but conceded that withholding information would be a serious matter. The defense is using these points to challenge the early stages of the investigations, the lack of documentation for approvals, and the circumstances surrounding the bribery warnings.

Mandelblit is defending his decision-making principles, denying intentional concealment, and asserting his professional integrity. The current proceedings aim to expose the behind-the-scenes decision-making processes within the prosecution and the Attorney General's office.